|
Post by aazzaabb on Dec 9, 2019 14:48:43 GMT
Nobody outside London knows or cares.
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Dec 19, 2019 21:36:11 GMT
Michael Jackson's accusers have quit social media, says Dan Reed
Bang Showbiz 6 hrs ago
Two of Michael Jackson's accusers have quit social media after receiving abusive messages from fans of the late pop star. Wade Robson and James Safechuck reiterated their sexual abuse allegations against Jackson in the documentary 'Leaving Neverland' - which aired earlier this year - and director Dan Reed has now revealed that they've quit various social media platforms because of the criticism they've subsequently received from fans and members of the Jackson family. Speaking about Robson and Safechuck - both of whom previously launched failed lawsuits against Jackson, accusing the singer of grooming them and abusing them as children - Reed explained: "I'm amazed at how serene they've been through all this. "But the movie has been good for them: they feel like their story has been told and entered the public conversation. I think people who saw the movie found Wade and James very credible." Reed's award-winning 'Leaving Neverland' focused on the stories of Robson and Safechuck, and their accusations against the pop icon. But Reed was shocked by the reaction to the documentary, which prompted Jackson fans to come to the defence of the deceased star, raising money to create their own counter-documentary. He told the Guardian newspaper: "As soon as the movie was announced, people were denouncing the victims without even knowing who they were. It was just a knee-jerk reaction: these guys are liars. "And you can't challenge them with facts because it's an article of faith for them and any challenges to that belief are blasphemy." Despite making the documentary, Reed doesn't want people to stop listening to Jackson's hits. Instead, he urges music fans to simply listen to the allegations. He explained: "I'm not about cancelling Jackson. But I think people should know that he was, at times, a monster to children."
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Dec 19, 2019 21:43:36 GMT
He told the Guardian newspaper: "As soon as the movie was announced, people were denouncing the victims without even knowing who they were. It was just a knee-jerk reaction: these guys are liars. Not true. We knew from the get-go that the accusers were Wade and James, and unlike Dan Reed and the mass media, the fans had been dissecting the court documents and noticing the inconsistancies and multiple changes in stories and timelines for about five years prior to Leaving Neverland. "And you can't challenge them with facts because it's an article of faith for them and any challenges to that belief are blasphemy." Challenge them with facts? Is this guy for real? What facts has Dan Reed ever presented, either in his mockumentary or in the media? Isn't he the one who has shied away from including any factual information, instead choosing to take the word of two guys seeking a multi-million dollar settlement and conveniently ignoring any arguments which may undermine the credibility of his hitpiece?
|
|
|
Post by jaywonder on Dec 20, 2019 0:14:11 GMT
The amount of arrogance and delusion that comes from him....ugh
|
|
|
Post by WildStyle on Dec 20, 2019 0:49:49 GMT
It's clear why Reed, Safechuck and Robson are a match made in heaven. They are all dishonest people at their cores.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Dec 20, 2019 6:12:15 GMT
He is just as much of a liar as his subjects are. He presented no facts. He presented allegations by two men with a financial motive to lie. He also presented a one-sided narrative.
Funny how he claims that MJ's family has no factual defense of him other than that "he was a great guy" when he never even attempted to find that out in his film. Unlike most other documentary makers, he never offered a platform to the other side to make their argument. His astonishingly dishonest way of claiming "balance" was to put a couple of minutes of archive footage in his film from MJ where he maintains his innocence regarding the Chandler case. That's Reed's idea of a "balanced" representation. Oh and his manipulated footage of a Geragos speech in 2005.
Why didn't he give an opportunity in his film to MJ's Estate and family to answer? What was he afraid of if they have supposedly no factual defense? Isn't it up to the audience to decide whether their defense is good enough and not Reed? But the audience will never even be able to see that defense. Even the surrounding media campaign made sure never to represent it. How many interviews and pro-LN articles have the Guardian written and how many interviews have they made with MJ's Estate or family? The answer to the second part of this question is zero. But they keep interviewing Reed even almost a year after LN.
And that they quit social media is another bold faced lie, trying to raise sympathy for these frauds. Not only they did not quit social media, but Safechuck only really got active after LN. Before that he wasn't active on social media and his Instagram was private. After LN was released he seems to think of himself as a celebrity. He deleted all previous content of his Instagram and he made it public. Ever since he either posts half nude photos of himself or photos of his kids, together with tagging CSA support groups. Trying to use his kids for sympathy and as a shield from criticism . "Look, I'm this wholesome white family man! You won't believe the eccentric black man over me, will you?" kind of pics.
And Robson was already active on social media before LN, but he too only got active after he made his allegations in 2013. Before that his social media accounts weren't active. Once he made his allegations, he too started plastering his kid's photos everywhere, using his photo in his avatar etc. And of course posturing as a "victim". The manipulative nature of it is transparent. Robson even has a blog, where BTW he wrote stuff that's in contradiction with his lawsuit.
If MJ fans were so dangerous as Reed suggests neither of these frauds would plaster their kids' pictures all over social media. So this is nothing but another manipulative pity party by Reed.
Every sentence that comes out of this guy's mouth is another lie. Like this: "As soon as the movie was announced, people were denouncing the victims without even knowing who they were. It was just a knee-jerk reaction: these guys are liars."
Really? We knew immediately who the subjects were even before their names were announced! Just read back this thread at the very beginning! We knew it were them because we followed their case. We knew more about their case before even watching LN than Reed knows about it even now, after making a film of them. This guy, who in his interview with the Guardian said BS like Robson sued MJ's Estate in 2015. It was 2013, Dan! Some basic stuff for any serious researcher of this case. But yeah, we are the ones who don't know what we are talking about, Dan?
The video we made about Robson, that has around 2.4 million views now, was released in January. Now, tell me if we, who did that video, are people who didn't know who the "victims" ("accusers", Dan, not "victims"!) are. Dan, who obviously hasn't read a single page of court documents in this case is trying to tell the world we didn't even know who the accusers were? What a shameless liar! Just like his protégés are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 7:08:16 GMT
Reed knows he wont be challenged because at this point, I think everyone is past LN. They watched it, were repulsed, now let's focus on TERFS!!!!
That seems to be the online world thing now.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Dec 20, 2019 7:10:48 GMT
Reed knows he wont be challenged because at this point, I think everyone is past LN. They watched it, were repulsed, now let's focus on TERFS!!!! That seems to be the online world thing now. Plus he knows with this biased media he is safe from hard ball questions.
I respect Piers Morgan for being an actual reporter and journalist and ask Reed some hard ball questions. And that French TV channel. But I think they were the only ones. On both occasions Reed absolutely crumbled. But with (toilet) papers like the Guardian, Reed knows he is safe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 7:13:00 GMT
Reed knows he wont be challenged because at this point, I think everyone is past LN. They watched it, were repulsed, now let's focus on TERFS!!!! That seems to be the online world thing now. Plus he knows with this biased media he is safe from hard ball questions.
I respect Piers Morgan for being an actual reporter and journalist and ask Reed some hard ball questions. And that French TV channel. But I think they were the only ones. On both occasions Reed absolutely crumbled. But with (toilet) papers like the Guardian, Reed knows he is safe.
Oh stop. The Guardian is what I'd call "Emotion Tabloid". I couldn't read an article by them. Their headlines read like satire tweets!
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Dec 20, 2019 9:13:17 GMT
Great post by myosotis at mjjf. For me, the surprise with this hit piece by Hadley Freeman was the timing of it. Just a few days after the main UK political party supported by 'The Guardian' (Labour) was soundly defeated in a general election (falling back to the number of Parliamentary seats they last held in 1935) and during ongoing impeachment hearings for the USA President, the most urgent thing she can think of to write about is.... a nearly year-old thoroughly-debunked TV programme! So yes, 'agenda' and 'propaganda' are very much to the fore here. Born in the USA but educated in the UK, this failed former fashion writer seems to be aiming for a career in US media, by brown-nosing all the 'right' people. In March 18 she interviewed her hero Oprah during the publicity cycle for the film ' A wrinkle in Time'. The title of her interview was 'God, I love Oprah'. ''(Ahhh, Oprah, the woman who could be (but won’t be) America’s next president. God, I love Oprah. Yes, I know she endorsed the likes of vaccine denialist Jenny McCarthy with a Goop-like enthusiasm. And yes, her preference for fuzzy platitudes over actual opinions is frustrating to those of us who know how smart she is. '' About Ava du Vernay she reports “Ava is more than a director – she feels like a movement,” Kaling says, done for the day and eagerly peeling off her high collar. “She knows people see her as an activist and this is definitely the most diverse movie I’ve worked on.” Hilariously, Oprah treated Hadley with barely-contained contempt, and apparently (in Hadley's own words) considered one of her interview questions to be 'racist'. www.theguardian.com/film/201...expecting-thisHadley also has 'HBO' connections - no surprise there. She says on Twitter: ''You realise you were an early adviser on Succession, yes? About a decade ago, you and @emilybell met with a friend of mine who was making a big HBO show based on, ahem, a media family. That eventually became Succession. So what I’m saying is, feel free to take all the credit. twitter.com/hadleyfreeman/st...485696?lang=enIn her latest Guardian interview with Reed, Hadley seems to have climbed so far up his backside that she can no longer see. She swallows Reed's comments about the fans unquestioningly and unthinkingly, such as when Reed says: ''As soon as the movie was announced, people were denouncing the victims without even knowing who they were. It was just a kneejerk reaction: these guys are liars. And you can’t challenge them with facts because it’s an article of faith for them and any challenges to that belief are blasphemy,” By January 2019, this forum alone had 1820 pages comprising over 17,500 posts about the Robson and Safechuck court cases, and fan forums worldwide would have replicated these discussions multiple dozens if not hundreds of times over since 2013/14. To suggest fans denounced 'LN' ''without even knowing who the protagonists were'' is patently ridiculous. I can only assume that the Guardian employs Hadley purely to create empty argument for the sake of Twitter mileage. On another topic (discussing Julian Assange), a 'labour voter' wrote on Twitter: ''Hadley Freeman exemplifies perfectly the demise of The Guardian. Nothing original, sarcastic, dismissive & offering no intellectually challenging insights. Just another low level propagandist jumping on bandwagon. Journalism is almost extinct in Uk. Printed media is dead & buried.'' twitter.com/hadleyfreeman/st...935744?lang=enHappily 'The Guardian' has a rapidly -declining circulation, no doubt helped along by Hadley, so hopefully her days in print media will not be prolonged. Last edited by myosotis; Yesterday at 11:27 AM.
|
|
|
Post by mjjfan810 on Dec 20, 2019 13:38:42 GMT
I wouldn't wipe my ass with The Guardian.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Dec 20, 2019 16:35:19 GMT
|
|
Suki
Wondering Who
Posts: 53
|
Post by Suki on Dec 21, 2019 13:26:40 GMT
The one liner about now knowing who sang Billie Jean until he was halfway through production perfectly illustrates his ignorance. He has done no research into MJ if that is true, Billie Jean is his magnum opus. It's like making a documentary on Da Vinci not knowing he painted the Mona Lisa
|
|
|
Post by WildStyle on Dec 21, 2019 13:44:57 GMT
The one liner about now knowing who sang Billie Jean until he was halfway through production perfectly illustrates his ignorance. He has done no research into MJ if that is true, Billie Jean is his magnum opus. It's like making a documentary on Da Vinci not knowing he painted the Mona Lisa I'm pretty sure that ancient tribe living on that deserted island that spears anybody that try's to contact them knows that MJ sang Billie Jean.
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Dec 21, 2019 14:46:40 GMT
You know hes full of shit when he said that. i guess he could have made himself look even more stupid and say thriller instead!.
|
|